webofevil | (no subject)

This whole Brand/Ross thing has become a monster. It’s a silly season story that has accidentally emerged blinking into the news rush hour. I was going to post yesterday about it, but events ran away from me and suddenly Ofcom was investigating and Gordon Brown was somehow involved. It tickles me that he chose to use the two most hackneyed political terms for expressing disapproval, “inappropriate” and “unacceptable”. Politicians use these words for every damn thing, from genocide to the canteen not carrying their favourite kind of jam. But what’s he doing commenting on this in the first place? What’s next, a furious condemnation from Ban Ki-Moon? An air strike?

The simple truth, though, is that both Ross and Brand are bullies. Both men’s schtick involves a lot of self-deprecation, but it pays not to be charmed or fooled by that—their self-loathing is all too real, and they’re keen to palm it off on to others. Literally, in the case of a friend of mine who, a long time ago, was introduced to Ross as a junior writer. They shook hands in a crowded room, only for Ross to leap back and start yelling, “Ugh! Sweaty palms! He’s got the sweatiest palms! Is that even sweat? Ugh!”^[1] And so on. Territory established. New bug successfully squashed. It’s a fleeting incident, but a revealing one.

Also revealing is my friend’s experience of writing many years ago for a BBC DJ whose show went out live after midnight. The procedure was that the show would be listened through afterwards to check the content. Some of the material was a bit cheeky, but it could take weeks before they got an irritated memo saying, “For God’s sake stop making those jokes”. They rapidly realised that there was a huge backlog of shows to be checked, and they made the most of it. So it wouldn’t be entirely surprising if the Brand show, though pre-recorded, had not been listened to by the time of broadcast for similar reasons. If it was and it was cleared, someone’s definitely for the chop.

But should that include our Russ and our Jon? Of course it should. Never mind nebulous questions of standards of taste or decency in broadcasting; the abusive messages they left on Andrew Sachs’s answerphone actually broke the law. Also, though Ross saw which way this was all headed at the end of last week so apologised to Sachs in writing and sent him flowers (while Brand did not), it’s noticeable that neither man has said anything contrite about Sachs’s granddaughter, the person who has been most badly treated in all this. She’s just the latest in a string of girls who have somehow been seduced by a diamond-cut jaw, a gallon of hairspray and Frankie Howerd’s vocal mannerisms, and have utterly failed to see the truth that is staring them full in the face: don’t fuck Russell Brand.

At best, you could end up as material in one of his trademark too-much-information routines about embarrassing sexual experiences. (Also, does he carry on with that “Hare Krishna” stuff even in intimate situations? Oh God.) Or he might pull a stunt like this and drag your family into it. It would be even worse, although obviously I’m not remotely suggesting that this could possibly have anything to do with him, if someone were—how to code this somehow?—to repeatedly not have sex with, and then be humiliated by, overage boys. Lucky, then, that he has no reputation for doing any such thing.

I was slightly annoyed to discover that the Telegraph (that’s not more code, just the newspaper) had come up with this connection first, but at least they’ve saved me the bother of writing something along these lines myself:

The behaviour of the Bullingdon Club in George Osborne's day was repulsive: arrogant young men, with more money than sense and no one to tell them what to do. They booked strippers, treated women like dirt, and their idea of a good time was an evening of nasty, bullying humiliation. Osborne was held upside down and banged on his head until he obligingly repeated an obscenity about himself. The stories have all the trappings of toffs enjoying themselves.

Yet look at the BBC radio studio last week: young men together, even more money than sense, lots of people around but not one who dared to stand up to them, whose idea of a radio programme was ringing up a 78-year-old and indulging in sexual boasting and nasty, bullying humiliation. Neither Jonathan Ross nor Russell Brand were members of the Bullingdon, but they do share the same sense of mischievous fun. The only difference is, the blades of the Bullingdon paid for it with their own money; Ross and Brand do it with ours. [Telegraph]

Now, I don’t think they should be sacked out of any indignation about the licence fee; I’ll leave that to the Telegraph and the Mail. I think they should be sacked because they have acted like unconscionable cowards and bullies to a man who has more dignity and decency than the pair of them. They’ve been a couple of spiteful bastards and have broken the law into the bargain, and they need to know that that’s not OK just because we’ve all heard of them.

^[1] Note for any younger readers: “Ugh” is what the British used to say in the days before “Eww”. Also, everything used to be in black and white.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

rhodri.livejournal.com

OK, they get sacked. Because of the way their contracts are constructed, they're given one almighty pay-off. A bidding war begins to seduce them to another channel / network. They end up with even more cash. Sacking them is no punishment at all, is it. Just a fairly empty gesture that will appear as if the BBC have been bullied into it by Tories, the right-wing press and the usual plethora of vacuous twots on HYS and the like.

Brand's a twat, and clearly doesn't give a shit. Ross is less of a twat, considerably more entertaining (IMHO) and at this point, I would guess, is feeling pretty sheepish. His chat-show on Friday will be pretty interesting to watch. I reckon that he'll be as contrite as it's possible to be.

I still think the blame lies utterly with the producers of the programme, for failing to rein in the worst excesses of presenters who, after all, have a reputation for being a bit dickish. And not only that, then editing and broadcasting the bloody thing.

Edited Date: 2008-10-29 11:11 am (UTC)

From:

webofevil.livejournal.com

I entirely agree about the other people who are culpable, but I still feel that it should be possible somehow to sanction behaviour that's beyond the pale. If not sacking, for the reasons you cite above, then how about a pay cut? Or is there literally nothing that would make these men less attractive to rival broadcasters, short of ruining their pretty faces? For my money Ross is great on "Film 20xx" but his chat show utterly honks, and I can think of nothing more fitting than that he and Brand both one day end up next to Richard and Judy out in the far reaches of UKTV.

From:

rhodri.livejournal.com

Well, you've got your wish. They've just been suspended.

Delivering evil strategy solutions in terms of webs, going forward

(no subject)

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags